Leiweke: MLS Will Expand by Two Teams Within Year By JAMIE TRECKER SportsTicker LOS ANGELES (Oct. 9) -- Tim Leiweke, whose Anschutz Entertainment Group owns six Major League Soccer teams, dropped a bombshell Wednesday when he revealed the MLS will expand by two teams within the next year. Speaking at a soccer symposium, Leiweke said, "Within the next 365 days, the league will announce that it will be adding two more teams. Then, we will add two more down the road." Leiweke added that AEG will not own any of the new teams. "Our purpose is not to be the majority owner of Major League Soccer," he said. "Someday we will have 20 teams with 20 different owners. We are committed to Major League Soccer, but we don't want to dominate Major League Soccer." MLS commissioner Don Garber said earlier this year that he hoped to supervise expansion by 2003. "We need more teams," said Garber, adding that it was a key goal to get new stadiums in Dallas and New York. "We need to be a 16- to 20-team league."
Good item, IBT. I hope the economy starts to improve so that they will get the support. Just as long as there's not two teams in Florida, MLS should be all right.
That means expansion draft also, for those who did not consider that. Also less-likely our San Jose team will be moved.
I'm a bit skeptical of this. If this means after next season, as in for 2004, then maybe. But for next season, I think it's too soon. I think the league needs to build on it's accomplishments from this year and increase attendance in the markets it already has. Then after next season maybe focus on the next big markets (Portland, please, Portland, pretty please!!!). I knew San Jose would not be contracted without the league first gaining more teams. Gaining more teams though, does not guarantee that San Jose will not be contracted at some point. The league can not exist without 10 teams. The more teams it has, the greater the likelihood one goes down. I think next season will be do or die for San Jose - or pretty darn near to do or die. Next season will be crucial.
I'm betting MLS expands on markets that don't have a pro sports team... Portland and Seattle have been traditional soccer hotbeds, as is St. Louis... Houston has a stadium, and they could expand SAS in Carolina if they so choose... New York would be also a good place for a second team... And mostly, if the bidding war picks up, at least the Anschutz unit will have to unload a few of their teams... I cannot fathom them being here or elsewhere except Los Angeles or Denver, though kudos for them for at least assuming control and operations of most of the teams... The keys are investors and a soccer specific stadium in place... Cheers!
oh please, please, please. That would be so awesome. There is quite a following in Houston, I know that the youth leagues are huge here, maybe we can all hope
I think sjqf is right. It probably won't be the 2003 season. If it is, MLS better make the announcement darned soon. Also, sjqf, I wouldn't worry about the team not doing well next year. As long as Frank is at the helm, a guy who worked wonders and kept this team at the top of the league, despite all kinds of shortcomings, I don't see that much cause for worry. There certainly are a lot of reputed hotbeds of soccer in the country. Rather than another team in the NYC area, what about Rochester? St. Louis is a traditional center and of course Portland, Seattle and Houston (although I think Houston will come later because MLS may not be too sure about putting two teams in the same state soon, but who knows).
Rice Stadium in Houston. Or a downsized version thereof. It used to be a large stadium, then it was reduced if I remember correctly. I also have reason to think it's ready for play. Reliant Stadium is a long shot at best, though they have grass and the field can be played to FIFA specs. I don't think the Texans owner will want to step foot, though he would look good with Hunt and Kraft (who own NFL teams and have a stake in the league/one team). Houston used to have NASL, and from that standpoint it gives Dallas another team to compete with. I'm thinking they might announce it soon, and then give them 2003 to prepare for 2004. The expansion momemtum was going along for 2001, then September 11 took place and everything else was placed on the backburner... despite the economic climate still reeling from that, expansion is back on their minds... ----- And remember Anschutz and Hunt have commited by 2006. To even last beyond that year, they need new investors and soccer specific stadiums as mentioned, and they need other people to control the teams, including San Jose.
I'm not worried about the "team" or doubting Franky's work. But if the league expands in 2004, and say our attendance next year doesn't continue to increase, THEN I'll be worried about the organization being moved or contracted. If the team doesn't make money for the league, and the league has other options, why would it keep the team? I'm not worried about these things, just something to think about. I am hopeful that the team will continue it's gain in attendance and other successes. I only mentioned Portland cuz I'm strongly considering moving to that area.
      The Earthquakes will not be moved or contracted anytime soon, and there weren't even any plans to do it. Alan Rothenberg (one of the founders and chairmen of MLS) himself had acknowledged that the league had royally screwed the San Jose market all those years, and that the league will see how SJ attendance does when the market is treated better - well, I think the league began to see the results near the end of the regular season.       Now if the Quakes front-office can implement the offseason advertising/marketing plan it needed to (but couldn't) start last offseason, then the Earthquakes will be in good shape.       As for MLS having less than ten teams: not without FIFA sanctioning. According to FIFA mandates, a league must have no less than ten teams to receive FIFA sanctioning, and if you believe that MLS doesn't mind losing its FIFA sanctioning, then I've got some nice oceanside property in Nevada I'd like to sell to you...       Don't forget, the Fusion and the Mutiny were not contracted because of attendance issues - either Ken Horowitz (Miami's I/O) wanted out of the league, or Philip Anchutz wanted him out... so bye bye Fusion. As for the Mutiny, for some reason no one could be found there that willing to be even a potential I/O (like SVS&E was for San Jose in 2001) for them, not even the Glazer family that owns the Bucaneers - so no more Mutiny.       By the way, SVS&E could have easily said adios after the 2001 season, but decided to stick around anyway (even as co-I/O), so the interest in the Quakes is there. So let's not indulge all those "MOVE SAN JOSE NOW!!!" fools' fantasies of having no MLS team in San Jose, otherwise you too will be disappointed when the San Jose Earthquakes hit the field next season, and the season after, and the one after that, etc. (unless the league folds first, which I doubt as much as a Quakes move or contraction).       GO EARTHQUAKES!!! -G P.S. = I also agree that expansion for the league could happen by 2004, but probably not by 2003.
Seems like I'm being misunderstood. I have never bought into the whole move San Jose crap. I DON'T THINK SAN JOSE IS MOVING/CONTRACTING. But something stands to be said if we can't pull the crowds in next season. Why would the league and any potential investor want to "buy" into a team that isn't making money or pulling the crowds in? Say Landon leaves (which I also don't think will happen), and all the Landonbimbos don't come to the games anymore. And we have like 6 or 7k at the games again. Now that would be cause for concern. But I'll worry about that IF it happens. In my first post, I was just responding to the comment that with more teams it would be less likely for San Jose to be moved. That's not the case. As Goodsie pointed out, the league needs 10 teams to be FIFA sanctioned. So with more teams, the league can stand to lose teams. Not that I think that will happen either. Anyway, I'm rambling. But I wanted to make sure you all don't think that I'm saying San Jose will be moved/contracted. I just meant that we have been on the edge of seats (the few of us that have been at the games) when it comes to attendance and fan base, and I think that next season will be very crucial for that.
For more on these statements by the Galaxy president, see the threads in business and media and in MLS news and analysis. This thread has brought up a lot of suggestion for cities that are good ones, that seem natural. But remember, the most important issues as stated by Garber and other league leaders in various press conferences and interviews: 1)an owner/investor 2)a soccer specific stadium. If you check out the MLS:Expansion and Stadiums thread, and Garber's recent comments, Oklahoma City/Edmond (Okla) are apparently doing feasibility studies right now about building a SSS; prospective owners have apparently met with the league. Does this mean the Quakes will be playing the Oklahoma Wranglers (is that an arena football team?) in 2004? I don't know. Earlier this summer, Garber out of nowhere mentioned meetings with a group from Minnesota, one from Toronto, etc. For all of people's hope that Paul Allen would step up and put an MLS franchise in Seattle's new stadium, it hasn't happened yet. Also, I got my first phone call from a Quakes ticket sales rep yesterday afternoon about next year's tickets. I thought that was a good sign. The rep also said he "had his fingers crossed" the new unis would be available before the holidays. Tony
Oklahoma feasibility study http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=929213&pic=none&TP=getsports Tony
Interested investors from Oklahoma, Milwaukee and I believe a few other places are going to be present at MLS Cup. Any announcements by the league will be made then.
Here is the quote people are not paying attention to. He did not say MLS is expanding next year. He said that withing the next year MLS will announce that it is expanding.
Ok. Landon isn't drawing 80% of the crowds. Im sure that dissapoints most of you. On the day with my DONODIVER shirt, 1 out of 5 people there said hey thats good and commented positively about the shirt, negatively about him. 5% of the fans are the teenage girl landobimbos, not 80% like most of you would like to believe.
*sigh* Fine, why doesn't everyone just skip over my posts in this thread. Cuz obviously you are grasping onto pieces of them and not even trying to understand what I'm getting at. Big Soccer is really starting to get on my nerves. I think I'll just stop posting in certain threads. Cuz I'm sick of this bullfish with being taken to literally.
* - After the World Cup and the buzz about MLS, the maxim would be to expand back. * - After shutting down the Florida teams, the level of play has improved, and the competition for roster spots have been evident. * - San Jose isn't going anywhere... * - Paul Allen is rumored in buying the Expos and (surprise) could be moving them to Portland, Oregon. If they don't go to Washington, DC it's likely they would move west and play in PGE Park for a few years before a baseball facility is built. That would drive the Timbers out if that theory holds. If MLS sees a major baseball team there they will most likely bolt, or the soccer team will have to play elsewhere in the Portland area. Speaking of Allen, he runs the Seahawks and could put Seattle MLS in his new stadium. * - Houston MLS will create a rival to the Dallas Burn. Ditto for OK MLS. Fans have taken into these so-called derbies/rivalries/series and the closer the team the better.
Don't forget...when considering Oklahoma for MLS that the 2 teams that continued to operate when NASL "suspended operations" were our beloved Earthquakes and the Tulsa Roughnecks. That tells me that there's certainly enough support in Oklahoma to put a thriving MLS franchise there. And, by-the-by, the Oklahoma Wranglers were both a late-lamented USFL franchise and a late-lamented AFL franchise.
So does this mean, Spart, that the team might be called the Tulsa or Oklahoma Roughnecks? That sounds good. I was afraid that those geniuses at Nike would get a hold of the naming process and come up with something Ned Flanders-like, say the "Okla Okies."
      Yikes! If you think that those team names are bad, though, can you imagine a team called the "San Jose Clash"?       Oh wait...       GO EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Depending on where they put the SSS, I'm hoping for "The Okies from Muskogee"...which will be the worst soccer name since the abominable Caribous of Colorado. But at least they'd have a ready made team song.